A frivolous survey

[Saruman]

Hello,

I was thinking how different situations would require different generals depending upon their abilities and skills.

As the President of your nation (North or South) which general would you select to:

A) Launch an offensive against the enemy in enemy territory (eg. capture the enemy capitol/major city or defeat its main army).
B) Repel an enemy offensive (eg prevent the enemy from capturing your capitol/major city, or defeat your main army).
C) Besiege and ultimately capture an enemy garrison protecting a major city.
D) Hold a major city that has been besieged by the enemy until the bitter end (even if supplies run out and the men starve).
E) Conduct a raid deep into enemy territory (eg. capture small garrisons, burn bridges/buildings, destroy rail-roads).
F) Rally a demoralised and disorganised body of troops and lead them back into battle.

As a soldier of your nation (North or South) which general would you select to:

G)Serve under for the duration of the war.
H) Have fighting beside you in the chaos of battle.

My own selections would be:

A) Stonewall Jackson (bold and aggressive)
B) Robert E. Lee (defensive genius)
C) Robert E. Lee (vast engineering experience)
D) Pierre G.T. Beauregard (did well at Charleston and Petersburg)
E) Nathan B. Forrest (the greatest cavalryman)
F) Albert S. Johnston (inspirational leader)
G) Joseph E. Johnston (unlikely to sacrifice men on foolish assaults)
H) Nathan B. Forrest (most fearsome general)

 

[ole]

A through H. my hindsight says Grant. Wasn't no one like him. Ask Bobby Lee. However skillful those other guys were, they lost. Yes, he had superior forces and he used them. Is that bad?

 

[BillO]

A through H. my hindsight says Grant. Wasn't no one like him. Ask Bobby Lee. However skillful those other guys were, they lost. Yes, he had superior forces and he used them. Is that bad?

No it isn't bad it's the sensible thing to do. He was a sensible, pragmatic man but he certainly wasn't any sort of rocket scientist boy genius by any stretch either.

 

[Red Harvest]

A) Launch an offensive against the enemy in enemy territory (eg. capture the enemy capitol/major city or defeat its main army).

U.S. Grant. He was successful multiple times launching these sorts of offensives.

B)Repel an enemy offensive (eg prevent the enemy from capturing your capitol/major city, or defeat your main army).

R.E. Lee had a real knack for this. Stonewall would be my 2nd choice.

C)Besiege and ultimately capture an enemy garrison protecting a major city.

Grant.

D)Hold a major city that has been besieged by the enemy until the bitter end (even if supplies run out and the men starve).

Thomas Ewing. While this one is admittedly a shocker his choice of defending Pilot Knob in what looked like a suicide mission and giving a bloody repulse are reason to go with a relative unknown. He had a death sentence hanging over him if captured, yet he fought, then judiciously escaped with his entire command in the night, out marching cavalry.

A more conventional choice would be George H. Thomas

E) Conduct a raid deep into enemy territory (eg. capture small garrisons, burn bridges/buildings, destroy rail-roads).

Jo Shelby beating out Forrest by a hair.

F)Rally a demoralised and disorganised body of troops and lead them back into battle.

Sheridan

G)Serve under for the duration of the war.

McClellan. Best supplied and mostly kept out of the thick of things...plus the war was over early for him.

H) Have fighting beside you in the chaos of battle.

Forrest, chances are if anything got hit, it would be his horse and not me.

 

[Saruman]

A through H. my hindsight says Grant. Wasn't no one like him. Ask Bobby Lee. However skillful those other guys were, they lost. Yes, he had superior forces and he used them. Is that bad?

I don't know about categories E, F, G, and H for Grant.

An excellent rider, but could he lead a cavalry raid?
Rallying demoralised troops? Did Grant ever do this?
You would like to serve under Grant? He had high casualties - you probably wouldn't survive the war!
Fighting beside you? Grant was no physical warrior.

 

[1SGDan]

My own selections would be:
A) Stonewall Jackson (bold and aggressive) Interesting choice since his only foray into enemy territory led to failure. Sherman is my choice here.
B) Robert E. Lee (defensive genius). Best counter-puncher of the war.
C) Robert E. Lee (vast engineering experience) Grant by virtue of victories at Vicksburg and Petersburg and a no quit attitude.
D) Pierre G.T. Beauregard (did well at Charleston and Petersburg) This is nearly always a losing proposition. Do not want any of my generals on this list.
E) Nathan B. Forrest (the greatest cavalryman). Stuart was the greatest cavalryman but I'll take Forrest for this type of mission.
F) Albert S. Johnston (inspirational leader) Lee had the love of his troops and proved he could rally them. Again do not want any of my leaders contending for this list.
G) Joseph E. Johnston (unlikely to sacrifice men on foolish assaults). George Thomas
H) Nathan B. Forrest (most fearsome general). Sherman again fearless and cool headed in battle.

 

[1SGDan]

You would like to serve under Grant? He had high casualties - you probably wouldn't survive the war!
Statistically you had a better chance of surviving the war under Grant than Lee.

 

[Red Harvest]

You would like to serve under Grant? He had high casualties - you probably wouldn't survive the war!
Statistically you had a better chance of surviving the war under Grant than Lee.

Hence my choice of McClellan. I don't have much respect for Little Mac as a battlefield or strategic commander, but as a grunt my chances appear to have been better under him, and I would have the best logistical situation possible for any army of the ACW.

 

[Robtweb1]

Albert Sidney Johnston

 

[CSA Today]

Offense – Lee, Jackson, Longstreet, Forrest, Grant or Hood with superior war materiel supply and at least a two to one manpower odds in your favor and no replacement problem.

Defense – Joseph E Johnston, Lee, Longstreet or George Thomas in a non-static role such as not having to defend a fixed position like a city or a siege. Lee, Longstreet or George Thomas for a fixed position.

"There were never such men in an army before. They will go anywhere and do anything."
Robert E. Lee

 

[Saruman]

You would like to serve under Grant? He had high casualties - you probably wouldn't survive the war!
Statistically you had a better chance of surviving the war under Grant than Lee.

That's why I chose Joe Johnston - Mr Fabian himself.

Men's lives under Grant and Lee were often wasted in brutal frontal assaults.

 

[Saruman]

Albert Sidney Johnston

Johnston is an excellent choice, but what about category H? He would only be armed with a tin cup

 

[Robtweb1]

Johnston is an excellent choice, but what about category H? He would only be armed with a tin cup

He lead the charge at the peach orchard at Shiloh and gave up his life. That's close enough to fighting beside you for me.